Subject: RE: [rohc] useful values torture test

From: "Vishal Sudan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 12:20:33 +0530

Hi Cristian,

That the third test is supposed to give decompression failure explains it. In 
such a case the third state does'nt get saved and S1 does'nt get deleted - decompression 
terminates before reaching END-MESSAGE.

Of course, as the doc says 
   "A liberal implementation could allow more cycles to be used than are strictly
   available, in which case decompression failure will not occur"

So if your 3rd test passes it would seem you are of liberal attitude.

Thanks,
Vishal Sudan

-----Original Message-----
From: Cristian Constantin [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, May 29, 2006 9:06 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [rohc] useful values torture test

hi!

pls. refer to
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-rohc-sigcomp-torture-tests-03.txt
section "3.1  Useful Values".

in my oppionion the outcome of the test when run with sms=2K (as spec in
the section "1.  Introduction") is different from the one described 
in the draft. the test makes use of the stored bytecode; here is a more
or less detailed description of what happens:

1. bytecode on the wire; END-MESSAGE just stores the "initial bytecode".
(as a side note, besides some exec code it contains some data as 
well 0x0040 - 0x0080; why?)
state memory = {S1(1024)}
2. bytecode accessed from state S1; END-MESSAGE stores again some
bytecode. however the "data" portion of it is different from the first
one. 
state memory = {S2(1024), S1(1024)}
3. bytecode accessed from state S1; END-MESSAGE stores again some
bytecode. however the "data" portion of it is different from the first
and the second one; S1 gets deleted.
state memory = {S3(1024), S2(1024)}
4. bytecode accessed from state S1; S1 is no longer there. error, but
different from what is spec in the draft.

if I'm right, then a possible solution would be that END-MESSAGE does
not always save bytecode but only at the first packet; if not pls. let
me know where is my mistake.

bye now!
cristian

_______________________________________________
Rohc mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rohc

_______________________________________________
Rohc mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rohc

---

From: Cristian Constantin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 08:35:06 +0000

> So if your 3rd test passes it would seem you are of liberal attitude.

cristian: yes, you're right. I'm allowing more cycles and I guess that's
why the extra state gets created.

however I still don't get it why the bytecode has to be always saved;
only the one saved the first time gets to be used.

thanks!
bye now!
cristian